The time for Keynes has passed

Adam Pagnucco responded to yesterday's post regarding his take on the budget. Adam, unfortunately, still is unwilling to admit a few key points and still questions my more mainstream view of Maryland's fiscal matters.

First, Pagnucco tries to shift most of the burden out of the O'Malley Deficit out of Maryland entirely:

Even casual readers of the news know that Maryland’s economy has suffered along with the rest of the nation. The causes of American economic stagnation are well known: a bursting real estate price bubble, resulting problems in financial markets and rising fuel prices exacerbated by a weak dollar. (The weak dollar is caused in part by immense federal budget deficits driven by the war in Iraq.) Those national problems affected Maryland.

I don't think that either of us can dispute the impact that an unstable national economy has had on our state, particularly in light of the fact that neither Republicans nor Democrats in Washington have been willing to cut back on President Bush's ridiculously unnecessary rate of domestic spending (which makes Lyndon Johnson look like Ebenezer Scrooge in comparison). But to say that the national economy is first and foremost the cause of the O'Malley Deficit is just factually incorrect, much like his next statement:

The slowing economy laid bare an underlying truth: the state had a structural deficit and was on track to spend $1.10 for every $1.00 it received in taxes. As I said nearly a year ago in a blog post ignored by Griffiths, the cause was two-fold: a 10% income tax cut in 1997 and billions of additional spending on education (commonly called the Thornton Plan) started in 2002. Both of these events occurred during the Glendening administration, but Governor Ehrlich did nothing to reverse them.

Only somebody trying to pull a fast one could make such a claim. To say that the income tax cut of 1997 was directly responsible for the currently shortfall is patently ridiculous. While Glendening pushed through the tax cut solely to take teeth out of Ellen Sauerbrey's 1998 gubernatorial campaign, it was a correct move for the people and the taxpayers of Maryland. But once you cut taxes, you know the money isn't there to spend. So, in a state where the budget is constitutionally required to be balanced, how can one blame a deficit on money that is not available to spend in the first place?

While I will agree that the Thornton Plan is part of our budget problem, to blame Governor Ehrlich for doing "nothing to reverse" it is also slightly ridiculous. It was Annapolis Democrats who railroaded the Thornton Plan through, a multi-billion dollar boondoggle where nobody wanted to articulate where the money was going to come from. Once Ehrlich was elected, Annapolis Democrats would never vote to repeal it because it was a convenient albatross to hang around Ehrlich's neck when he couldn't fund the increase in education in Baltimore City and Prince George's County. It was the left who was responsible for fiscal silliness surrounding Thornton.

At this point, Pagnucco deviates into the absurd:

Griffiths implicitly assumes that tax hikes hurt the economy while government spending cuts do not. Here he demonstrates a basic ignorance of every macroeconomics course taught to college freshmen. From the perspective of economic growth, it does not matter whether the government implements a tax hike or a spending cut as a deficit reduction measure. Both reduce aggregate demand in the economy, especially when taking into account a reverse multiplier effect.

I didn't implicitly assume anything. I will explicitly state that tax hikes hurt the economy while government spending cuts do not. This is part of the basic philosophy of the Austrian School of Economics championed by folks such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek. It is their philosophies that have shown, time and time again, to be the best course of action for our nation. Keynesian Economics played a large part, for example, in the creation of the New Deal and the further economic devastation caused by its implementation.

Pagnucco, instead, champions the failed policies of Keynesian Economics, which champions a strong role for the state in a theoretical effort to increase economic growth. That Pagnucco would champion such a model is not surprising, for Pagnucco is employed by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Ergo, Pagnucco's support for increased or maintained state spending, while understandably self-interested, is flawed and somewhat hypocritical.

Increasing or maintaining state spending helps Pagnucco and his employer, as in a closed shop state such as Maryland the preponderance of state capital construction projects wind up built by union shops. If taxes are cut and state spending is reduced, more capital will become available for the economy at large. There may be more constructions jobs available for a greater number of contractors, but since the free market is not bound to hire union workers at potentially inflated wages, it is in Pagnucco's interest and his employers interest to maximize the amount of jobs available to union members, in this particular instance union carpenters. The problem is, while this may be beneficial to Pagnucco and his employer, it is a raw deal for average middle and working class families who are expected to pay higher taxes to cover the cost of this governmental largess. Which is why he concludes with this:

The best thing the state government could do to revitalize Maryland’s economy is to increase its investment in infrastructure, even if it means taking in additional revenues. The Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce recommended raising $600 million for the Transportation Trust Fund this year, a step that was unfortunately not taken by the General Assembly. The business community and building trades unions believe that infrastructure construction creates jobs, long-lasting physical assets and abundant opportunities for private sector growth. Those things in turn will stabilize the budget over the long term. If only conservatives like Brian Griffiths could agree.

While I would agree that our infrastructure needs greater attention, it would be completely foolish to again raise taxes in this economic climate. But once again, there is a way to address our infrastructure at a reduced cost, without increasing spending, and without raising taxes if we just again bring privatization to state building projects, particularly transportation projects. Pagnucco, however, would probably resist such an idea because, once again, it is not in his own self-interests.

Pagnucco and other liberals continue, however, to make one point clearly and painfully obvious to all voters and taxpayers here in Maryland. Liberals will stop at nothing to raise taxes and increase spending, particularly when it comes to their own self-interests and the interests of the special interest groups who support them.

Once again I ask: when are Maryland's leaders going to put the interests of our working and middle class families first? When are we going to get the tax cuts and spending reductions our economy needs to grow?

Not Quite

Adam Pagnucco has accused me of "lacking consistency" when it comes to the fact that Governor Palin is more qualified to lead than Barack Obama. Adam's contention is that because the selection of Joe Biden reinforces Obama's lack of experience to be President, that makes it (allegedly) hypocritical to support Governor Palin's nomination as Vice-President due to the experience factor. Never mind the fact that, as Mark Newgent pointed out, her cherry picked pieces of my argument to try and support his point.

The problem is that Pagnucco's argument has no merit. When it comes down to experience in public life, Sarah Palin has served the people of Alaska for the last sixteen years. When Barack Obama was still a young lawyer and "a community organizer" for fringe political groups, Sarah Palin was a mom and City Council member.

When Obama was first elected to the State Legislature, Palin began accumulating her leadership experience as an executive, as Mayor of Wasila.

When Obama was still a State Legislator, she was appointed as Chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, where she led the fight for Clean Government and began railing against Corruption in Alaska State Government against members of her own party.

Once Obama graduated to the U.S. Senate (a job he has shown up for a mere 141 times in four years), Palin was again accumulating Executive Experience as the Governor of Alaska, further fighting corruption and graft both inside and out of Alaska state government. During that time, she managed to get tough in negotiating with oil companies regarding Alaska's Permanent Fund (an excellent piece in the Spectator notes her fantastic negotiating skills).

Pagnucco's argument about Obama's allged foreign policy experience is laughable:

The contention that Senator Obama and Governor Palin have similar levels of foreign policy experience is factually wrong. Senator Obama has worked with respected Republican Senator Dick Lugar to reduce conventional weapons stockpiles, sponsored a measure to encourage public pension funds to divest from companies connected to Iran and co-sponsored the 2006 Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act along with Senator McCain. This does not match Senator Biden's record, but it is hardly equivalent to the "experience" of Governor Palin.

Un-huh. Any U.S. Senator can attach their name to a bill as a sponsor and attempt to take credit for it. So color me unimpressed. Also color me unimpressed that Obama called zero hearings of his European Affairs Subcommittee. Color me unimpressed that Obama and Governor Palin have both taken exactly one trip to Iraq during their terms in office. So yes, it is fair and accurate to say that Governor Palin and Obama both have similar foreign policy experience, which is to say not much.

The argument that Obama is more prepared than Governor Palin to be President is absurd. And the idea that the right, particularly me, is being hypocritical on the Biden/Palin issue is equally absurd. Senator McCain, in selecting Governor Palin, selected somebody who will be a partner in change and in reform. Somebody who can lead on day one, without the training wheels. Governor Palin accentuates Senator McCain's message. As I stated Friday:

Needless to say, I am surprised, and I shocked, I am ecstatic, and I am extremely enthusiastic about this pick. Sarah Palin is the future of the Republican Party. She's both conservative's conservative, and a reformer. She took on the corrupt Stevens/Young/Murkowski wing of the Alaska State GOP and has succeeded in changing her state and her party for the better. THIS is the type of change that Barack Obama wishes he could bring; Sarah Palin has been there, and she's done that already.

So next time Adam, be a little more honest about the argument conservatives are making. The argument of experience is important, but let's face it; conservatives are excited about Governor Palin because she symbolizes real change and real reform. And that is what Republicans have to offer, and it is the polar opposite of four years of tried, tired, and failed liberalism revisited that Obama administration would offer America.

Liberals need to face a simple fact; while Governor Palin was leading, Barack Obama was grandstanding. And it's not hypocrisy to challenge The One.

Quotable

On Isaac's post regarding Governor Palin, it's turning into a jungle over there:

That's your final answer, Brian? Is there any action, any at all, that a Republican can take that makes you say "hold on, WTF, I can't justify this?" Is it all ultimately just a game for you, you pusball? Does nothing matter other than making whatever argument is at hand? Is there finally no limit to your mendacity and your smarminess? At long last, sir, have you no decency whatsoever?
- lefty

Sigh. One of many insults hurled at her, me, and Republicans in general. Their desperation is hysterical. I guess that's what I get for pointing out facts.

The depths Democrats will go to defend their (unqualified) candidate and discriminate against Governor Palin is impressive.

I Get Letters

Needless to say that yesterday's post about Paul Foer earned me a nastygram....from Paul Foer:

from	Paul Foer
to		brian@briangriffiths.com
date		Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:36 AM
subject		Thanks for all the free publicity of my ideas......

We've never met, yet you sure have taken an interest in me. I appreciate the fact that you read Capital Punishment, take me so seriously and pay so much attention to what you label as my "fringe left" views that you feel compelled to tell even more people about it--who then visit my blog. I think it's funny that you say I resort to "yelling" because I put a few sentences in bold. At least I don't resort to immature name-calling.

Regarding the Bay Bridges, you confidently feel that we'll alway have the energy available to power all the vehicles you anticipate for years and years to come. Okay. Talk about sticking one's head in the sand. There's plenty of it at the beach, so enjoy your next trip there...over two spans or ten....why not just build a fifty lane bridge? More bridges everywhere.....

It's bad enough that your views don't consider the tremendous changes we will are undergoing now, but to attack someone whose views you don't like or agree with is just silly. Now you'll turn around and whine that I'm like the people described in "Liberal Fascism" or some such thing. But you don't know me. You know nothing about me.


Paul Foer

Wow. Foer does realize that I am not promoting his ideas....I'm mocking them for their lack of foresight, thought, and reason.

If that weren't bad enough, he then tries to completely change the argument. At no point in my rebuttal of his post did I talk about fuel. Why? Because something is going to power cars. I don't know if it will be gas, ethanol, sawgrass, hydrogen, or chicken droppings, but the people of this country will be using cars. That's not going to change anytime soon. People have been using personal, land based conveyances since a minor invention 5700 years ago. If Foer believes that is going to stop, that we won't evolve to cleaner fuels, than he is even more naïve than I thought he was.

This is my favorite part:

but to attack someone whose views you don't like or agree with is just silly. Now you'll turn around and whine that I'm like the people described in "Liberal Fascism" or some such thing.

You mean like this?

No, Mayor Moyer, you're just a mean-spirited, angry, paranoid incompetent as mayor. You are not a bad person. Rough around the edges perhaps. Quick to anger. Not always warm and fuzzy. We can handle that. But please, we have a municipal government to run, a corporate body, and it just keeps getting worse.

Yeah, couldn't imagine how I'd find you a hypocrite.

Besides Foer. I know what your game is. You make money off of the transit industry, so naturally he is going to denigrate alternatives in an effort to put some money in his pocket. It kinda reminds me of this (warning, language):



Foer also makes money on boating, including gas-guzzling motorboats. So I'm not exactly sure I want to get preached at on the environment by somebody who makes a living on things that guzzle more gas than my Saturn.

I point out people like Foer because these are the people who think they know better than you. Paul Foer thinks he is better than me, better than you, and better than anybody involved in politics or government. In truth, he's just a bitter guy, mad that he wasn't old enough to be a hippie, so bitter that even reasonable liberals like Bruce Godfrey have trouble getting a meaningful conversation out of. I point people like Foer out because these are the people that are brining nothing constructive to the political conversation, and people like him need to be exposed for what they really are.

Banned in Kos-sackstan

A very interesting story developing in the leftist blogosphere, as one Daily Kos member was banned for having the audacity to talk about John Edward's marital infidelities:

About a week ago, I posted a piece on the Huffington Post called Say It Ain’t So, John. I didn’t think it would have much more impact than my usual posts…maybe a dozen comments or so, a couple of people linking to it. To my surprise, it became the most read blog the Huffington Post for a few days.

I cross posted on DailyKos, which is probably the best known and biggest progressive blog. I’ve been posting at Kos for a long time. As more news about Edwards has come out, I followed up with more posts which were also the subject of a large number of comments. All of them looked at the Edwards situation from my point of view; that is, a liberal who is concerned about the implications this story may have in November.

Now I’m banned. I can’t write about ANYTHING at Kos. Can’t comment, can’t post a non-Edwards piece. Nothing.

And I stand by my title - it’s largely John Edward’s fault that I’m banned. I’m now personally a small piece of fallout from the scandal. That’s because Edward’s defense is shoot the messenger, not answer the questions. The rabid response of the people on Kos is directly related to Edwards and his own response. That’s exactly why I’m saying this has the potential to hurt the Democratic brand.

So answer the effin’ questions already, John. For everyone’s sake.

I’m not sure if the DailyKos is going to take down my writing and make me a complete un-person there. Of course, real progressives are against censorship so Maryscott O’Connor’s blog MyLeftWing is my new community home. (Maryscott was the lead actress in my film Breathing Room about 13 years ago, by the way.)

We have talked a lot before both briangriffiths.com, RedMaryland, the Conservative Refuge, the Word on the Street, and other places about the inability of liberals to take criticism, their inability accept dissent, and their default position to crush, vilify, or flush down the memory hole anybody who disagrees with their one view of the world.

But this is something above and beyond the pale. The Daily Kos crowd likes to talk a good game about how the Bush Administration tries to crush dissent, how mainstream Democrats tried to crush dissent, and how an open society accepts the fact that "dissent is patriotic." But can anybody rationally explain why such a site, the biggest site in the leftroots, would ban a poster from talking about a legitimate news story?

If this kind of thing is widespread in Kos-sackstan, I think it is safe to say that the Daily Kos has begun its inevitable slide to irrelevance.